Not Even Mad: Sarah Isgur and Sarada Peri

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Gist – "Not Even Mad: Sarah Isger and Sarada Perry"

Introduction

In the April 3, 2025 episode of The Gist, hosted by Mike Pesca from Peach Fish Productions, Pesca delves into the tumultuous aftermath of "Liberation Day," a significant event impacting the U.S. markets and federal operations. The episode features two insightful guests, Sarah Isger, a Dispatch editor and ABC News contributor, and Sarada Perry, former special assistant to President Barack Obama and senior speechwriter for multiple Democratic National Conventions. The discussion navigates through recent federal workforce reductions, political strategies, and the broader implications for American democracy.

Federal Workforce Cuts and Their Implications

Pesca opens the conversation by highlighting the significant layoffs within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including the elimination of USAID and VOA, and cuts to critical programs such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. He raises concerns about the unknown long-term impacts of these reductions:

"Other than a vague sense of oh, government too big or I never heard of these agencies anyway, or on the other hand, oh, these poor people, civil servants are the heroes. How do we actually know that they're getting any of this right?" [08:56]

Guest Insights: Sarah Isger and Sarada Perry

Sarah and Sarada provide a nuanced analysis of the federal cuts. Sarah emphasizes the uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of government operations without these agencies:

"We don't know whether they're getting it right or wrong, for that matter, I don't think we really will know the impact of what they're doing to know whether they got it right or wrong or whether there is any impact that real Americans feel..." [08:56]

Sarada builds on this by suggesting that the backlash from these cuts is already evident among Republican constituents, who are pressuring their representatives to address the negative consequences:

"Republican members of Congress are going to Trump and saying, hey, can you give us a favor and not cut this particular office or these veterans jobs in my district..." [14:22]

The Balance Between Policy and Performative Actions

A significant portion of the discussion centers on Cory Booker's 25-hour speech, which Pesca criticizes as more performative than substantive. Sarada contends that while the speech showcased Booker's dedication, it lacked tangible policy outcomes:

"He was actually willing to stake this on and say, this is where I stand. I can do no other." [37:52]

Sarah agrees, highlighting the importance of actionable legislative efforts over symbolic gestures:

"Cory Booker trying to reign in Trump's tariff power would have been a rallying moment, but instead, it was just him speaking for 25 hours without direct policy implications." [47:26]

Elon Musk's Political Ventures and Campaign Spending

The episode shifts focus to Elon Musk's unsuccessful attempt to influence a Wisconsin judicial race by spending $12 million, which resulted in a significant loss for his candidate. Sarah and Sarada discuss the diminishing returns of excessive campaign spending in modern politics:

"We're now seeing that the money is not predictive in any races... Nationalized our politics... once you've hit table stakes, everything above that is not predictive." [34:59]

Sarada warns against over-reliance on figures like Musk as political boogeymen, suggesting that connecting such personalities directly to broader political movements is crucial for effective messaging:

"You have to start doing a really tight job of connecting him to Trump and making that story clearer." [35:55]

Political Accountability and the Role of Congress

The guests critique the abdication of responsibility by Congress, emphasizing the need for accountability and effective legislative action. Sarada believes that Democrats must actively engage in highlighting and addressing the consequences of federal cuts:

"Democrats actually have to make this happen... alerting people to the fact that things might be in trouble because they made all these massive cuts." [14:24]

Sarah underscores the dysfunction within Congress, advocating for a return to meaningful legislative processes rather than relying solely on the executive branch:

"We want Congress doing the things, not the President. It's the correct way we do it." [49:34]

Historical Reflections and Political Strategy

The conversation takes a historical turn with reflections on past political figures like Chester A. Arthur and James Garfield, drawing parallels to current political challenges. The guests recommend biographies such as "Destiny of the Republic" by Candace Millard and "Gentleman Boss" for those interested in understanding these leaders' impacts on government reform.

Humorous Interlude: Go Grinders

Toward the end of the episode, Pesca introduces the "Go Grinders" segment, where participants share pet peeves or light-hearted grievances. Topics range from the aesthetics of Hooters uniforms to the frustrations of vegetarian menu options, injecting humor into the otherwise heavy political discourse.

"Hooters outfits are weird and not sexy... As a species, we know about sexual selection. If these things were attractive, people would be wearing them in the wild." [53:07]

Conclusion

The episode concludes with a reflection on the current state of American politics, emphasizing the need for practical legislative solutions over performative acts. Pesca reiterates the show's theme of being "not even mad," fostering a balanced and critical discourse on pressing national issues.

Notable Quotes

• "We need to avoid catastrophizing the normal and normalizing the catastrophic." – Mike Pesca [20:53]
• "The federal government is bloated for a bunch of reasons caused by people of both parties." – Sarada Perry [24:01]
• "Donald Trump is sui generis, though, right? All these other people have tried to be Donald Trump and run for office, and not a single one has won by the Donald Trump method." – Sarah Isger [52:31]

Final Thoughts

This episode of The Gist offers a comprehensive exploration of the intersection between federal policy cuts, political strategy, and the broader implications for American governance. Through the expert analyses of Sarah Isger and Sarada Perry, Pesca provides listeners with a deeper understanding of the challenges facing the Democratic Party and the imperative for meaningful legislative action in maintaining democratic integrity.

Transcript

[Mike Pesca]

Foreign It's Thursday, April 4, 2025, from Peach Fish Productions, it's the gist. I'm Mike Pesca. It is liberation day plus one. How will the markets react? Well, I record this before they close and they go up and they go down. The S P was down as much as 5%. I don't know, maybe by the time you hear this, it will be down as much as 10%. Now, 10% happens to be the minimum tariff. That's how much the country of Swaziland will have to pay, as opposed to the country, the very close country of Lesotho, which Donald Trump recently said no one's ever heard of. It is the most highly tariffed country, 50%. I sometimes like to look at the tariff graphs and no one really understands the rhyme or reason of these quote unquote reciprocal tariffs. Some smart mathematicians and economists seem to have cracked the code. It's based mostly on balance of trade, how much we export, and they don't even look at services, which is an important part of trade anyway. Even people who are really into tariffs say that is no way to make a tariff. Actually, they don't say that because the people who are really into tariffs are total Trump sycophants. I mean, listen, if you're a tariff guy your whole life and you come along and tariff God, the tariff king is instituted, you're not going to say, hey, I don't think the Falkland Islands should have a 42% tariff. The Falkland Islands, by the way, does have a 42% tariff. Sometimes I like to play the tariff game and I like to say to myself, I wonder, I think of a country or someone shoots a country my way and I say, I wonder what the tariff's going to be. Chad, like Chad, it was on the original Muslim ban list. It seems it's close to countries like Nigeria, which are pretty high at 15. I'm going to say Chad's a little over 10. And I'm right. I just looked it up. Chad at 13%. And this means, if I understand economics, that Chad is going to come to their senses, slash, crumble to their knees and do away with all the tariffs that it has been imposing on U.S. goods. And now American exports are going to flood into Chad. The Chadian market is now going to be open to us thanks to these 13% tariffs. Now, we won't be getting any into tariffs on not even mad, in fact will it will be mentioned and it will inform the conversation. But we are going to talk about, as you hear, the massive cuts on just about every federal worker and all levels of government. We're going to talk about if Cory Booker talking a lot is going to do something about it. I have such good guests today. In fact they threatened to give lie to the very premise of the show because they are so not even mad. They are so be set with understanding and a shared commitment to the common good that the show could possibly be retitled. Have I got a vegetarian restaurant option for you. Which actually we don't roll on everything in the show. Some bonus material is in the not only some bonus material is included in the Not Even Mad specific feed. Please do subscribe to that. But yeah, these two got along really well. But you know what? It made for a good conversation. Sarah to Perry. Sarah Isger up next, Not Even Mad. Hi, I'm here to talk about True Work. True Work is hell bent on creating the most technical, high performance workwear in the world. Don't let that intimidate you. Do let it intimidate the elements. But True Work is a coherent story that begins in the Colorado mountains. A trade worker said, I'm not going to wear jeans to do this work. I'm not going to wear material that gets wet and bogged down. It's engineered for maximum comfort and efficiency, but I wear it casually all the time, and I mean all the time. I wear the jacket, I wear the pants, which is a nice rust color, yellow, has a lot of pockets. It is soft, it is stretchy, it is sweat wicking. And people who wear True Work love true work. Over 50,000 5 star reviews and countless stories from trade pros in every state and in every job across the country. Even actuarial accounting, I assume. It does look good. Check out the full lineup and get 15% off your first order@true work.com the gist. That's 15% off@t r u e w e erk.com the gist. Hello and welcome back to Not Even Mad, the show where we might have no truck with the cyber truck, but we tend to talk it all out before burning it all down. Yeah, it's not even mad. Today we speak of Doge slashings, HHS firings, Wisconsin judicial Muskian rebukes. And we ask is the only path to salvation along a path, path paved by Cory Booker's iron tongue. As we do so, we uphold our reputation for refutation. We vow to be not even mad. So who are we? I always say we when we say we're not even mad. Well, in this case, the we is Zarida Perry. She was special assistant to the President and senior speechwriter for President Barack Obama. She wrote for the DNC in 2012, 2016, 2020. So, Sarada, we can't blame you for 2024. Sorry, we can't credit you for anything having to do with brat.

[Sarada Perry]

You can't credit me for brat, but I actually ran speechwriting in 2024, so you can blame me.

[Mike Pesca]

You did. You ran it?

[Sarada Perry]

Not alone.

[Mike Pesca]

I was there. There were some good ones.

[Sarada Perry]

Good ones didn't.

[Mike Pesca]

What was it? What was an underrated one?

[Sarada Perry]

Oh, that's a really good question.

[Mike Pesca]

Because everyone liked Baracks.

[Sarada Perry]

Yeah, you know, I thought some of the younger folks, like Max Frost were really energizing and, you know, they just went under the radar screen. But they were great.

[Mike Pesca]

Yes, Chuck Schumer wasn't that good, though I will have to comment. He was energized. But anyway, I don't want to get in the way of any future gigs. Let me just opine. We. The we also is Sarah Isger. She's a Dispatch editor and ABC News contributor. The advisory opinions co host. Hello, Sarah. I'm going to. I'm going to say we're going to talk about Musk, but I am going to predict that you don't. Or not predict, but analyze that. You don't use Twitter that much anymore, do you?

[Sarah Isger]

I don't anymore, but not having anything to do with Elon Musk in particular.

[Mike Pesca]

No. But can I tell you how I know that? Just it's not just the nature and frequency of your tweets. In your bio, you said, I am a cat slash brisket mom. And I also happen to know you're a mom Mom. Like a human baby mom. Oh, well, it's been updated since then. What's going on?

[Sarah Isger]

The brisket actually refers to my son.

[Mike Pesca]

Oh.

[Sarah Isger]

We called him the Brisket. So the reason you know, it's not updated is because we have two sons now. So. And we called the second one Popcorn in utero.

[Mike Pesca]

So I was hoping you could roast or roast beef.

[Sarah Isger]

No, you'd think so. But we let the brisket come up with what to call the next baby. And he called him Popcorn.

[Mike Pesca]

There's always a danger of allowing 5 year olds that privilege.

[Sarada Perry]

Well.

[Sarah Isger]

And in fact, we just got a cat who he named Guac and Chips.

[Mike Pesca]

Really?

[Sarah Isger]

Yep. We now have a cat called Guac and Chips.

[Mike Pesca]

The cat's a collective yes. Oh, my God. Well, this is all good news. Here's some perhaps less good news, depending on how you look at it. The at the Department of Health and Human Services, 10,000 people were laid off. Let's go through the list. USAID gone, VOA gone. Specific agencies like the Low Income Home Emergency Assistance Program, Acts, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. We're not going to know about that anymore. 3500 at the FDA, 1200 at the NIH, the, the CDC slash divisions on workplace safety, workplace health, HIV injury prevention, reproductive health, smoking and violence prevention. Half a DOV was fired, then they were hired back about a week ago. So here's my question, Sarah, I'll start with you. Other than a vague sense of oh, government too big or I never heard of these agencies anyway, or on the other hand, oh, these poor people, civil servants are the heroes. How do we actually know that they're getting any of this right?

[Sarah Isger]

Yeah, I mean we don't. Is the actual real answer. Not only do we not know whether they're getting it right or wrong, for that matter, I don't think we really will know the impact of what they're doing to know whether they got it right or wrong or whether there is any impact that real Americans feel and all of that for quite a while. You know, one theory of this is that actually it will be the most likely MAGA voters who will feel the impact first. If you live in a rural community where more than you know of is actually paid for through grants by the federal government, they may be hardest hit or at least hit first when you know, local Medicaid money dries up and stuff like that. But some of these things like the surveys that you're talking about, we're not really going to feel that in any specific sense for decades potentially, as we realize we have a gap in our data or don't have the data anymore and now we need the data in a way we didn't foresee.

[Mike Pesca]

Right. But those people whose full time job was maybe doing the tobacco survey, one or two people, so we won't feel the savings of their salary either, I would say. But my question is, and I'll, I'll toss it to you, Sarah, in a second. But my question to you is, does this mean is your theory of how government or politics works that since we won't know how it feels, it favors the slashers or does it favor, I guess you would say, the inertia of always having these programs slash the narratives that could be put forward by the media, who's. Who benefits from not knowing?

[Sarah Isger]

Yeah, I actually think on the whole it benefits the slashers for now. But take something not slash related like Tariffs, for instance. What you're seeing politically right now is the American people are willing to have an experiment. And I'm basing that on the fact that you look at the right track, wrong track numbers, and I don't look at the raw numbers, look at the trend lines. Trend line wise, more people think we're on the right track than at any time in 15, 20 years, depending on which survey. You look at Trump's approval rating significantly higher than it ever was in his first term. So clearly, the American people are like, look, I like what you're saying. Let's see how it goes. You want to run this experiment, you're telling us you want to put your political, you know, capital on the line for this? Okay, let's see it. But then the proof's in the pudding, right? So when nobody answers the phone at the Social Security office, something, by the way, my parents recently called because they had some weirdo question that nobody could answer.

[Mike Pesca]

And older people call. That's what they do.

[Sarah Isger]

Oh, yes. They don't.

[Mike Pesca]

They don't use the app.

[Sarah Isger]

And you know what? They got someone on the phone, and that person who answered the phone knew the answer to their question. So whether it's that or, you know, the terrorist thing goes really, really well or really, really poorly, I think this administration gets the political benefit right now of saying very popular things about cutting the government, but they will also get the political consequences, good or bad, as we see them unfold.

[Mike Pesca]

So, Sarah, the proof is in the pudding. And other than the FDA not having the commissioners who are able to certify the pudding is safe, are there going to be other actual real life consequences? Do you think that people already, who aren't already disinclined to hate this will notice?

[Sarada Perry]

I mean, I think you're seeing that from the fact that Republican members of Congress are going to Trump and saying, hey, can you give us a favor and not cut this particular office or these veterans jobs in my district? Right. They are aware and they are already getting angry constituent calls. You know, I worked on the Hill. I heard those calls there. They're not fun. And so the fact that Republican members are upset about this, are worried about this, and are trying to figure out how they navigate their relationship with Trump and still avoid these cuts, tells you that people are concerned about it. And, you know, going back to your original question, when you said, is this working? What is this? Right? I mean, what even is the project? Is it the. Is do we take the name at its face value, that they are truly seeking efficiency if they were truly seeking efficiency, then they wouldn't bother slashing all of, you know, the, the workforce at HHS when it's 1% of the budget, they would go for the real cost drivers, and they're not doing that. Right. So it just, it just begs the question of what they're, what this project is. And then the other element is that to Sarah's point, we won't know exactly what the costs and what the, what the downside of all this is, what the consequences will be. But part of that is because it's so uneven, Right. When you take, when you slash everything, you're slashing programs and people of varying degrees of impact and consequence. And so maybe we won't know whether, you know, those two drug surveyors will have an effect on people's lives for another 20 years. But what about, you know, NIH grants that are getting cut in the middle of some kind of experiment? You know, they pull the petri dish because there's no more funding that could actually affect a clinical trial that someone's about to enter. We just don't. So I think that there, there is an opportunity for Democrats to actually start going and messaging on these things. Right. So going out into the districts, standing in front of the VA office that's now shuttered and saying how many jobs are lost and how many veterans aren't getting the benefits they're supposed to be getting. In other words, it's not going to happen on its own.

[Sarah Isger]

Right.

[Sarada Perry]

Democrats actually have to make this happen.

[Mike Pesca]

Yeah. Well, personally, I was considering taking up smoking. I'm just waiting for the latest numbers to come out. So now that they won't, I don't know. I'm in limbo. But I do wonder about that. And I'll throw it back to you, Sarah. Do you think that making the case because it didn't work with usaid, there were protests outside the office and I was a little surprised, I'll be honest. I'm more oriented towards wanting to engage internationally. So I thought these points were good points and someone would care, but no one did. Do you think it's a lot different with some of these other agencies that we're talking about?

[Sarah Isger]

Well, like you said, I mean, they did start politically popular. Foreign aid is the most unpopular thing in the US Budget based on literally like a gazillion surveys that we've done for 30 years. It's always been unpopular because people don't really understand what it means to have soft power. Understand the.

[Mike Pesca]

By the way, if it was just a CIA front operation, I'd be fine with that, too. I'm unusual, I will admit that.

[Sarah Isger]

I think, actually if the American people knew that it was all a CIA front operation, they'd want to fund it. I think the problem is they're taking some of these names on face value, and we can't. And by we, I just. I don't. I don't know anything, but, like, nobody's telling us that. Actually, like, I know that name sounds really boring, but use your imagination, folks. So, yeah, I don't think. I think what's not effective when it comes to countering Trump is prognosticating and name calling, I. E. Saying this horrible thing will happen in the future, and he's a fill in the blank, you know, whatever. So you have to actually have the thing happen, like Sarah just mentioned, you know, stand in front of the VA that's been shuttered. Yeah, but the VA actually has to be shuttered, and that's not really true yet. And so saying the VA is going to shutter and then it doesn't helps Trump. You know, saying that Trump is Hitler and then there's no Auschwitz in Missouri helps Trump. So I think that you have to find the things that actually have happened and landed in people's lives, and if they haven't, don't exaggerate. And I think that's been a real problem. This is not, by the way, Democrats. This is a real problem on both sides of the political aisle is the catastrophization of politics. This is the most important election of your lifetime. If they win, they're gonna burn down your church, they're gonna arrest your LGBT friends, whatever it is. And it. People become used to it, but they also become really, really scared of the other side. There was a survey recently that showed that the more partisan you are, the less knowledgeable you are about what the other side believes. As in, like, you think the other side is more extreme and crazy.

[Mike Pesca]

And by the way, Republicans are. Republicans are worse at that than Democrats. Republicans have more inaccurate beliefs about Democrats. And the other way around, they think they're unbelievable. Democrats think that they're unbelievably rich. Republicans are. And they're not. Or. And Republicans think Democrats are a bit more gay than they are. But, yes, that. That goes on. That goes on.

[Sarah Isger]

And a version of this as well that I really love is that it makes you bad at math. That if you give people a math test that deals with apples and oranges, like, you know, whatever, 80% of the people get the question right, and if you ask those same hardcore partisans, but now you use guns and abortion, they are far more likely to get the exact same math problem wrong because they can't accept that the math might turn out differently than their priors. Now of course, remember you're making up the numbers like the numbers are relevant. But if it turns out that like according to this math problem, gun control isn't as effective, Democrats will get that question wrong rather than answer that gun control isn't as effective and ditto abortion on the other side or whatever. So you know, it's a brain worm and it's a real problem because on the one hand those hardcore partisans are the base for both parties. They're where the money is coming from from both parties at this point. In a, you know, post campaign finance reform world, it's small dollars rule. And so your both partizan sides are prisoners to this like 2% of the American public who is not representative, has no clue what the other side believes and is becoming increasingly bad at math.

[Mike Pesca]

Yeah, Sarah, I guess the, I guess the problem as I see it is Sarah's probably right. You have to wait until there are real life consequences versus you predicting the consequences. But then if you wait, it very much could be too late. Right?

[Sarada Perry]

Yeah, I mean, I, I take Sarah's point that, you know, exaggerating is not a good idea. Catastrophizing doesn't help. And you know, crying wolf got us into a situation where now we really are in an existential crisis for our democracy. Right. So the, the question is, you know, if we don't look at the entire federal government and everything that they're doing as one monolith, but you break it down, are there areas where you actually can sort of suggest we don't know what's going to happen, but you don't want to take a bet on this. You don't want to take a bet on the FDA inspectors not being there to make sure that your baby formula is safe. You don't want to take a bet on whether or not your car seats are safe or whether frankly your veterans can get their benefits or whether, you know, my mom can actually get her Social Security check or her questions answered. In other words, you pick the things that are actually potentially doable fights and you actually, and you wage them. And the reason you wage them is I think not just sort of die hard partisan. The base of Democrats wants this, but I think people in general would be more intrigued by the terrible Democratic brand at the moment, but by individuals within the party and by Potential leaders if they actually stood up for something. Right. So, so, you know, to the extent that, you know, maybe we'll talk about this, but that Cory Booker has made any sort of, you know, splash, at least he did something right. He's people, people can admire that he stood up and he stood for something. And I think right now just seeing Democrats have any kind of fighting in them, fighting them is worth it. But, but more than that, even like from a nonpartisan perspective, just alerting people to the fact that things might be in trouble because they made all these massive cuts kind of just willy nilly without much of a strategy, seems like it's still worth it. Not in a, you know, lighting my hair on fire way, but hey, constituents, watch out. This could be a problem. Right.

[Mike Pesca]

Yeah. Let me, I would just want to note something on my show. I always say we need to avoid catastrophizing the normal and normalizing the catastrophic. Now I was thinking about the normal part of that one talking point that you see all the time, in fact you even see it in a sign at the State of the Union is this is not normal. And I wonder how far that goes because to me, the Democrats saying this is not normal is essentially a proxy for advocating the status quo. And if we know nothing else, it's that Americans are fed up with the status quo. They kind of don't want normal. How they want the deviation from normal is a question which brings me to the idea of the scalpel and the chainsaw. You and I, Sarada, both think they're going too hard. I assume that you're one of these reasonable Democrats who say, well of course there's waste, fraud and abuse and I'd like to cut it all out. But do you think that through the normal, reasonable methods that Democrats are on their best day known for, you really could get at the waste, fraud and abuse and follow up. Question is if you could, why haven't you thus far?

[Sarada Perry]

Yeah, I think that it would take reckoning with the fact that the federal government is, you know, bloated for a bunch of reasons caused by people of both parties, that there of course is inevitable fraud and waste in a giant bureaucracy like the one we have. And you're right that Democrats up until now have some have tried at the margins. President Obama had a program to, you know, he talked about combining Department of Commerce and they were, there have always been. Then there's the reinventing government initiative under President Clinton. Like there have always been these initiatives but of course we know why they haven't gone anywhere and why it's so challenging to do. And I'm not saying that, you know, you would get some kind of clear victory on that point by going through the quote, unquote, normal processes of legislation. But it really hasn't been tried, let's be clear. You know, I mean, to, to raise awareness about this is one thing, but no one's ever really tried it and it would take a huge undertaking. It's just not clear to me that what they're doing now is even aiming for efficiency or the end of waste, fraud and abuse, or if it's just aiming to get Elon Musk more contracts for his own businesses, like among other things. I mean, there is merit, of course, to raising this issue. It's just what they're doing isn't working either. I don't know if I think it would, I think it would take something major to actually change it. But the, but part of it also is identifying what the real problem is. Like even just these terms waste, fraud and abuse are just sort of kind of political problem at this point. Right? You just sort of throw them around. But what, what each of them means, something very distinct. We should investigate which each of them means, which agencies and sub agencies. We're talking about how we got to this, the point where there might be abuse at say, cms. You know, is it because Senator Rick Scott just bilked Medicare for all of its money and got away with it? Like there's a whole bunch of reasons why these things happen. And I think these non specific terms allow frankly, Democrats and everybody else to get away with not doing anything about it.

[Sarah Isger]

This is where I think we have our first disagreement, like a real disagreement. I'm so thrilled to find it. I think that what the American people have heard for the last 30 years is administration after administration come in promising to do this, to actually look at the government and figure out how it can be made to work and not waste taxpayer dollars instead of just continuously growing the beast. And so when they hear like, oh, well, actually no one's ever done it before, I think that would be enraging to people who are like, well, time and again I voted for it. So either you lied to me or it's not possible to do with a scalpel. And either way, what Trump has offered is basically this like, yep, I'm a lame duck. I know he would never say that, but like, yep, I don't need to run again. And the people who I'm bringing into government don't have futures in government service. Like all of these other people who just keep bouncing back into administrations every time a Republican or a Democrat, you know, depending on your party, gets elected. And so we're actually going to, like, do the thing that everyone else told you they were doing, but, you know, they weren't doing it. And, yeah, there's no scalpel version of this because once you take a scalpel, basically the bureaucracy sucks you in like quicksand and, you know, tells you that they need more time to find this, and we need a study to figure out that. And we won't know the effects. And so if you're not willing to do it unless you know the effects, we're gonna find out in 20 years what the effects would be if we had cut it back in 2025. And so when given the choice between nothing and a chainsaw, they're going to pick the chainsaw, is what we learned.

[Mike Pesca]

So, Sarah, I want to know what you think, though, because so far you've given me excellent political analysis. And also, you know, you're. You have a good client. You're a lawyer with a good client. You're not saying things that you don't want to say. But do you think that there's a decent likelihood that, yeah, of course, as a reasonable person there, there are going to be excesses, but do you think that there is a decent likelihood that even this manner of cutting not will be popular, but will lead to reforms that the. That are a net positive for government?

[Sarah Isger]

Maybe. So here's my real opinion. Like, I don't like chainsaws. I'm a Burkean institutionalist. Chesterton's fence is there for a reason. Until we know why the fence is there, we don't tear down the fence. I mean, that's what a conservative actually is, by the way. And I'm that kind of girl. Like, I've, I've often said, like, I'm a process girl in an outcome world. So I really care about process, the do kind, and the scalpel kind. So if you actually wanted to cut government spending, like Sarada has already hinted at, we know where the money's going. It's going to entitlements. And if you come in and say, I'm not touching entitlements, I know you're not serious about cutting. So that's where I personally actually stand. Now, your question was a little bit different, which is, do I think this will lead to good things in government? To the extent it does, I will tell you where my hope lies. It is the reaction from Democrats which for the most part have not been, this is all bad and we hate it. It was at first kind of, maybe in a more muted way. But what you're hearing now is Democrats realizing they can't be the status quo defenders, they can't be the institution defenders, because nobody likes the institutions and nobody likes the status quo. And so you're hearing, well, we don't like this either, but we have a better way to do it. If both parties actually believe that the government and the administrative state is too big and isn't working, that could actually go somewhere, then you might, I don't mean anytime in the near future, but down the road to have two political parties who believe that can actually lead to good things.

[Sarada Perry]

Can I just say, I think the, the challenge with this, with this whole, you know, we've been promising voters for years that we're going to cut this again.

[Sarah Isger]

This sort of more Republicans than Democrats, by the way, like, sure. So believe me when I say I'm blaming one side more than the other and it ain't yours.

[Sarada Perry]

Yeah, but, but you know, everybody has. Right. Part of it is because we end up in this situation where like, let's just say that it was Democrats doing it, but even when Republicans do it, no one's willing to level with the American people about what that's causing the blow of the government. Right. And so, you know, when it comes down to it, voters don't actually want us to come cut Social Security or Medicare or even to some extent, defense spending. Right. They don't want any of that. So we make up, we sort of invent this idea that waste, fraud and abuse is this enormous problem. That's the reason that the federal government is problematic in the way that it is. And by the way, spending is only one part of the problem. I mean, hiring and firing in the federal workforce is a problem. And I will, you know, stipulate that a Democratic constituency is partly to blame for that. But just so is the kind of sclerotic nature of a huge organization that has been kind of built and constructed like a Jenga tower over decades. You're just going to end up in this situation. But will I still take the great underrated President Chester A. Arthur and the Pendleton Civil Service act over a spoil system that Trump is trying to bring back. Yes. You know, Chet was right coming to it later in his life that we did need reforming of the civil service. And so I will take that over the alternative. And, and I think, I don't know if we can actually level with the American people, like, we are so off, you know, the deep end of, I guess, normal. To go back to that normal word, that. That. That word that we use, that. That maybe we can't. But no one has been willing to sort of admit what the real problems are.

[Sarah Isger]

Oh, my gosh. And see here. I mean, maybe I shouldn't assume. Does this mean you're also a James Garfield fan? Because I'm a big James Garfield fan. I have a whole, like, you know, fanfic about what would have happened if James Garfield hadn't been, like, you know, people's grubby fingers had been stuck in those bullet holes. He would have survived and we would have had something maybe different than the Pendleton Service Reform act, but it still would have been good, maybe better. Anyway, yeah, I am a James Garfield fan.

[Sarada Perry]

I feel, though, that he has gotten a lot of. In part because he died, you know, sort of young and at the height of his powers, in a Kennedy sense, very handsome. And he kind of constructed his resume and his Persona to be like, the underdog or this, you know, like me. What, me president. You know, and then he gets, you know, he wins and he's got this whole thing and. And then he dies, you know, tragically. The whole thing is so awful. But, you know, Chet, of whom nobody expected anything, who himself came from the New York spoils system, you know.

[Sarah Isger]

Yes.

[Sarada Perry]

Sort of wrought from nothing by Roscoe Condren, is the one who reforms the system, who comes to this realization. And to me, that is a beautiful story of redemption. It is like, truly a great American story.

[Sarah Isger]

So even when you're reading history, you still might don't think, yeah, I have.

[Mike Pesca]

A tear in my eye. I love Chester A. Arthur. They smeared him as a Vermont. He's Canadian. Always go to the bust of Roscoe Conkling. In grammar. No, in what was the park on 23rd Street. Anyway, I would always worship at the Bosco bust of Roscoe Conkling. These were great men. And they could both. Both he and Rutherford B. Hayes spoke classic Latin and Greek, though it was rumored that. No, not Hayes. He and Garfield spoke Latin and Greek. And it was rumored that I think Garfield could write in both languages with both hands.

[Sarah Isger]

I think I heard that. Yeah.

[Mike Pesca]

Yes.

[Sarah Isger]

Yeah.

[Sarada Perry]

I think I'm glad it saved him from those infections.

[Mike Pesca]

Crazy rumors.

[Sarah Isger]

So book recommendation. Destiny of the Republic by Candace Millard is, like, incredible on this. For those who are wondering why we all seem to know so much about this, and even when you're reading the book, your expectations of Chester Arthur are low. Like you know how it's going to end and you still are like, yeah, this guy's not going to pull it off.

[Sarada Perry]

There's a great biography, sort of like the seminal biography of Chester Arthur is called Gentleman Boss. Highly recommend it.

[Mike Pesca]

Wow. So this has turned into Chestery Arthur. Book recommendations. We'll take a break and maybe we'll have some. We'll have some Benjamin Harrison.

[Sarah Isger]

Yeah.

[Mike Pesca]

Daguerreotype recommendations on the show which you think depict what was his good side. Benjamin Harrison, graduate of Miami University of Ohio. We'll be back in a minute with more of Not Even Mad at Chester A. Arthur. We're back with what's been an incredibly agreeable edition of Not Even Mad. But don't worry, we're going to get to the rough stuff as I bring up Elon Musk. Not just the person, but Persona of Elon Musk. And Elon Musk was informing so much of what we were talking about in segment one and Doge and his chainsaw. But he also tried to inject himself in a Wisconsin judicial race. It did not go well for Mr. Musk. After spending $12 million, what did he have to show for it? His candidate, Brad Schimmel, lost to Susan Crawford by about 10 points. I am not one to over interpret midterm elections, but I don't look at this election as a midterm election. I look at it possibly as a referendum for either Musk, his political acumen in general, the role of spending in politics, it does seem, especially when you get past a certain, certain level, if you spend more, you lose. That seems to be the recent trend. But am I over interpreting this? Sarah, do you.

[Sarah Isger]

Yes and no. So first of all, if I had, you know, gotten a time machine and asked Sarada and Sarah here to predict what would be the outcome of a special election in the Florida district that we had and the special election in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, we would have predicted it correctly based solely on partisanship. So basically the outcome was the most likely outcome. So then you're looking at like, okay, what if I told you that there was all this money poured in and Mike, that's exactly where I am. That we had reached the point of diminishing returns, basically 100% diminishing returns on additional dollars in presidential races in 2016. Obviously Hillary Clinton spent a lot more than Trump. And there you go. But it was still the case that at congressional level the money was mattering because of name id. And so money was still a predictor lower ballot. But now that we've basically Nationalized our politics. You know, the like. All politics is local. Like, that died also circa 2016, 2017, like after Trump was elected. We're now seeing that the money is not predictive in any races. And here, by the way, I do mean diminishing dollars. You have to have some amount of money to play at the table. You know what I mean? But once you've hit table stakes, everything above that is not predictive. Do I think it is actually counterproductive? I could, I could write that paper. Like, I could make a compelling case that it is actually costing.

[Mike Pesca]

Once you annoy people in their home for the thousandth time, there might be a backlash.

[Sarah Isger]

Well, and what happens is you run out of TV airtime to buy, and so then you're looking for all these other things to spend your money on. Not there's things you want to do, but you have the money. And so now you're searching for things to do, and you end up doing things that, as you say, are potentially at least useless or counterproductive. The last thing I'll say on this, though, is also, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is proving why we probably should not elect judges anymore. The whole thing is like a failed state over there at the Wisconsin Supreme Court. And I think. I think that experiment has run its course in Wisconsin. Probably, instead of fighting over who's going to win the races, needs to change to a different model of having picking Supreme Court justice justices.

[Mike Pesca]

Sarada, do you think at this point, Elon Musk's usefulness is only as a actual boogeyman to Democrats and future ads?

[Sarada Perry]

You know, I hesitate to predict anything ever. I will say he's obviously proved himself to be the most annoying human in America. However, I think that, first of all, you can't extrapolate anything from one race, I guess, three. But really, one race this early in the cycle and only a couple months after Trump won. And two, I think there is actually a danger of sort of leaning in too much on Elon. Right. And making it all about him, because then it makes it easier for voters to separate Trump from Elon and all of Trump's candidates from Elon. So, you know, you want to use him, of course, and talk about him, but we also have to start doing a really tight job of connecting him to Trump and making that story clearer. And we have a whole bunch of other things to do. So there's just a lot of work.

[Mike Pesca]

There is. There are other things to do and stories to make clear.

[Sarah Isger]

Clear.

[Mike Pesca]

And a person making that story. You said, let us talk about him because talk he does. Let's talk about what Cory Booker did. Now I say picture a chart and there is an X axis and the X axis is importance and the Y axis is difficulty of task. Right? So way to the left, lower left, not very important, but not very difficult. Something like pushing the button for the crosswalk. Then up here, not very difficult, but very important. The simple act of saying please and thank you. And then over here, way on the far right you have something that's very difficult, but I'm going to say not very important. Maybe David Blaine doing all his tricks where he locks himself in, lose sight and I suspect or I worry that Cory Booker is act though impressive, especially from a urological perspective. It is not very important though. I couldn't have talked for 24 hours even if I didn't. The dehydrated, the pre dehydration routine that Cory Booker did. But Sarada, make the case. Tell me what he said that impressed you.

[Sarada Perry]

I think he said so much in those 25 hours that it's hard to isolate one thing. But I think that it is throughout, you know, there was a moment and I don't know, hour 20 where he just sort of burst into passionate speech and that probably happened multiple times. But you know, the Internet picks up a few. I think the larger point is that Democrats have been saying that we are facing a threat to our democracy and yet not necessarily willing to sort of put themselves out there in a way that suggests they themselves are taking this risk as seriously. You know, I offer that self criticism of our party and here's Cory Booker saying, I ain't going to pee for 25 hours and I'm going to stand up here and talk because I actually think this is that important. And you know, does it necessarily, as you say, sort of meet your access test, you know, in that sort of straight calculation? Probably not. But does it begin to sort of seed something in people to say, oh, he's standing up, maybe we should too, maybe we should just, I don't know, do some mass protesting just to start getting some energy up. Maybe that that's that people can see that someone, some member of the Senate, of the United States Senate is actually standing up just a few weeks after many people felt like Chuck Schumer didn't. And I'm not, you know, I don't debate that. There's certainly, I don't necessarily have a strong feeling about that. But, but I think, you know, for people to see someone stand up and do something thinks, okay, well then maybe we should be, too. Maybe this is a moment that there's some energy around it. So I think it's a really rough calculation. It's a hard calculation to actually make and sort of say this will, you know, this will definitely lead to, you know, some kind of outcome. But to go back to Sarah's point about being a process girl in an outcome world, I mean, I think the process of him doing that has some kind of value that's intangible, but maybe even just a drop of energy right now is useful also. I think, frankly, it's just he's a guy who has a moral vision of this, a moral view of this is taking his sort of role in the pantheon of people who are advocating for rights seriously, taking his role as an advocate in the Senate seriously and saying, I'm going to do this thing.

[Mike Pesca]

Now, to be fair, Chuck Schumer doesn't have the bladder control that Cory Booker have, so we couldn't ask him to do that. But. But Sarah, does it annoy. You worked for the Cruz campaign for president at one point, right?

[Sarah Isger]

Sort of. I was working for the Carly Fiorina campaign for president. And then when she became his vice presidential pick, it felt a little like we were a conquered foe on the bus. But yeah, I was there on the bus for a few weeks.

[Mike Pesca]

So. Subsumed by Cruz now.

[Sarah Isger]

That's right, Cruz.

[Mike Pesca]

So I don't, I don't really know how what kind of opinions or affection you have for Cruz, but I was.

[Sarah Isger]

Sent, to be clear, I've known Ted for a very long time before he was ever in elected office and, and have high affection.

[Mike Pesca]

Good. Excellent. Because I'm picking up out of, out of Cruz world a little disdain, irked and annoyance because he did the same thing in 2021, I think, and no one and everyone, or maybe it's 2013.

[Sarah Isger]

Anyway, he did know you're thinking of the Obamacare.

[Mike Pesca]

Yes, he did the same thing maybe 10 years ago. And people just, or members of the media at least didn't take his accomplishment nearly as seriously as Cory Bush.

[Sarah Isger]

Yeah. Welcome to why People Think the Mainstream media is biased 2025 edition. Luckily, we don't have a mainstream media anymore because people only tune in to people they agree with. So we're done with all of that. So I take all of Sarah's points. I will add, I guess, my just gut reaction to it. One, I am thrilled at the idea of no longer ever having to mention Strom Thurmond being the record holder for the filibuster as he was filibustering the Civil Rights Act. It is a stain on our country's history that the record for the filibuster. So basically every time we talk about the filibuster, we have to talk about that. But the problem is Cory Booker wasn't filibustering anything. There was no bill. He was actually willing to stake this on and say, this is where I stand. I can do no other. It was more like a 25 hour cable news hit or something. And so it didn't actually break Strom Thurman's record for the filibuster. It broke the record for speaking on the Senate floor, I guess. And so me. So I'm annoyed with that aspect of it. I do think it came off as, yeah, performative. There was no there there. Like, yep, he doesn't like Trump. We know that he wasn't showing some sort of policy future for the Democratic Party. Or like, this is the thing we have to stand on. Like, it was a. Wasn't even a shotgun approach. I mean, a blunderbuss approach to like, see how great I am at speaking and that maybe you want me as your next Democratic nominee far more than here is what I think we must do this specific thing. A bill we must pass or a bill we must not pass or something. In his role as senator, it was really none of that. And like, I mean, Mike, you know, my whole thing is like, make Congress great again. That all of our problems, literally all of them, I mean, is it raining right now? Is it too cold where you are? It's Congress's fault because Congress has totally abdicated its role as actually doing legislation. And then as problems have piled up, people have looked to the president to do more and more and more. The president then tries to do more and more and more, promises to do more and more and more as he does that, then Congress isn't going to take the heat for trying and having to actually compromise. If the president can give their constituency everything they want with no compromise, even if it's only for four years and the next president's going to undo it the first day in office and then the whole thing winds up in the courts and we just get to blame the Supreme Court when they say, you know, no running by the pool and you have to wait 30 minutes after eating. So what I wanted to hear from Cory Booker was Senator Cory Booker talking about what he as a senator and what the legislative branch was actually going to do to fix some of these problems instead of just Cory Booker running for President. Because the only way you can make a difference in this country is by running for president, slash, being president, which is what it feels like. The Senate is now it's just a waiting pond for cable news pundits and future presidential nominees.

[Sarada Perry]

Not to further undermine. Not even mad. But I 100% agree that Congress has completely abdicated its responsibility. It's frankly appalling and deeply problematic and has caused all the problems that I think, Sarah, that you laid out very well and.

[Mike Pesca]

But you disagree on the pure performativeness of Booker. Right. I mean, it wasn't for Sarah Isger that speech.

[Sarada Perry]

Correct. And that's the thing. The American voter doesn't know or doesn't care about why he was on the floor for that long. They wouldn't have followed all that process, sadly, for people who appreciate process. But more than that, I think where we are sort of in this moment is I don't know if it's necessarily about policy for Democrats. I don't know if that's actually what the, what voters are necessarily looking for or, I mean, on some policies. Yes. Why they supported Trump, especially the people who are sort of on the fence and maybe voted for Biden previously. I think can I get a lot of people want is like a feel what people want is, you know, and I think that for Democrats, if we were to go straight to policy right now, I don't have the answer. I'm just guessing. My sense is that that might not actually do the trick, that there's a little bit sort of more building that we have to do. And part of that is, is. Is kind of just kind of throwing everything at the wall a little bit, getting everybody out there. So Chris Murphy, you know, out on the trail and, you know, AOC and Bernie doing their thing, and Cory Booker standing on the floor, just a lot of activity of some type winning this election in Wisconsin, just a lot of general activity to get some momentum. And then you sort of, the next piece to me is, is developing a vision that, you know, may or may not include these specific policies.

[Sarah Isger]

Yes.

[Mike Pesca]

Sarah, you were going to say, I.

[Sarah Isger]

Can'T help but put on my former campaign operative hat at this point and, and see what Sarada would think of this idea. So Donald Trump names April 2nd Liberation Day, the day his tariffs are going to go into effect. And he's using his emergency powers granted by Congress long, long ago as his authority to promulgate those tariffs. Imagine a world in which Cory Booker had spent 25 hours saying we must have a bill to undo the president's emergency powers in this area. And I think he actually still could have talked, basically said exactly what he did say. But there would have been a thing he wanted to do with his powers as senator. I want to take away this power from the president to do tariffs. They're going to hurt people. Here's how. It's going to raise prices for everyone. Here's how. And I am a senator and we can do this as a Senate with the snap of our fingers. He doesn't have this power unless we give it to him. So let's not give it to him. And then all the headlines wouldn't have just been like Cory Booker speaks a long time. They would have been Cory Booker tries to reign in Trump's tariff power. And it would have been this rallying moment, I think for Democrats around a thing they can do because all you need is a couple Republicans who don't want Democrats to have the tariff power when they take back the presidency or who maybe think these tariffs aren't a great idea for their constituents and you're off to the races. Or at least you can say the Republicans wouldn't help us rein in presidential power so that the next time there's a Democrat and they're carping about presidential power and like presidents don't have the power to do this. It's like, well, we tried, we told you. And instead this was just Cory Booker talks a long time. How can you say that's not just about running for president in 2025?

[Sarada Perry]

Oh, I'm not saying it's not about running for president in 2025. I think every, I think that's what everyone's doing. But so, so I know, I take that. I, I also think that no matter what the headlines would have been Cory Booker talks forever and doesn't use the bathroom. Like that's just the way things are regardless of what he actually talked about. And God, I would do certainly don't want to be the person who had to write a 24 hour, 25 hour speech about tariffs. But, but again, I take your point. I think that would have been an interesting experiment to run and to sort of my only question is, are we in a moment where based on the approval ratings that you cited early on, what people actually want is for Donald Trump to exert a lot of power and that the power piece of it, even if the tariffs are unpopular, sort of pairing it with his power to do it. I don't know if that would necessarily be as compelling, but I absolutely so depressing. But I Absolutely. Take your point that tethering his whole speech to a particular policy may have been, may have been a useful thing to do and less about him running for president at some point.

[Mike Pesca]

You know, when you're doing that, you just need material. Someone has to hand you that. And if it was the tariff speech, he'd be just reading lists of things subject to tariff, you know, with their code. 3, 3107 umbrellas, sun umbrellas, not including walking stick, 5, 4102 porcelain and ceramic tableware. Scrap metal would have been great. Just speaking of scrap, one scrap or stray thought I had was he beat the Strom Thurmond record of speeching or speaking, if I want to speech correctly. He beat the Strom Thurmond record. I don't know that the quote, filibuster record is necessarily a positive record. Not just because what that filibuster was in service to just in general. Having the filibuster record is like having the, I don't know, most parking tickets record. Yes, it's a record. But I don't know how celebrating, how much celebrating we should do about the holder of that record.

[Sarah Isger]

I mean, I can come up with some bills that if you had filibustered them, you would be a hero right now, not a villain. Like there's plenty of things that Congress has done that were bad.

[Mike Pesca]

But you're the have Congress do something. Yeah, yeah.

[Sarah Isger]

So I want them to do bad things and good things. Cuz I think overall having at least because of political accountability. Right. Because you can vote these people out of office when they do bad things. And you can't vote the third bureaucrat down in whatever office when you don't like what they do because you don't even know what they did. So we want Congress doing the things, not the President. It's the correct way we do it. It's the constitutional order. And the way we're doing it right now is an effing disaster.

[Mike Pesca]

Last thing on Cory Booker. It's a pretty neat party trick. I don't just mean they're not going to the bathroom. He did not phone it in. He did not read the phone book. He had verbal flourishes, turns of phrase. I mean, you know, he was by hour 18, falling back onto the old preacher bag of tricks. And every time he would say right, he would say right and righteous. But he did what he had to do. And I don't think that. And again, not talking about the sheer, the sheer taxation of it on the body, but the actual being Able to come up with more or less cogent things and not horribly uninteresting things to say for 20 hours. He yielded a lot of the floor. I don't think but four or five members of Congress, even members of the Senate, even how given they are to prolixity, could do that.

[Sarah Isger]

Or Cory Booker is brilliantly smart. So, for instance, he was the speaker at my Harvard Law graduation, and I was one of the class day speakers, so I got to, like, spend some time with him. He really is as smart behind the scenes as he is on camera. I think the worst thing that happened to Cory Booker and many other people, potential leaders than the Democratic Party, was running for President in 2019 and 2020, where they all took insane positions that now they're stuck with. And this was the Harris problem. It will be the Cory Booker problem. They were caught up in where they thought their party was and where it was going. And it turns out it was like this fever dream that is now broken. And the people who were. Who were sort of out in front of it, even though there were a whole lot of people behind them, but the people who were out in front on video raising their hands for stuff, I just don't know that they will have a political future in the Democratic Party.

[Mike Pesca]

I'm glad this got brought up. You're right. I decried it at the time. But how come the laws of gravity don't apply to Republicans? I could think of some prominent Republicans who took 180 degree different positions on important positions, and some of those Republicans, or one specifically, is in the White House.

[Sarah Isger]

Yeah. Donald Trump is sui generis, though, right? All these other people have tried to be Donald Trump and run for office, and not a single one has won by the Donald Trump method. So being Donald Trump is not actually a very good strategy for these guys. And in fact, what you've seen is the Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, all those guys who ran in 2016. They don't seem to have much future either right now.

[Mike Pesca]

All right, let us look to our future as we talk about goat grinders. These are the things that grind your gears or get your goat. It could be little, they could be big. Mine is going to be. I could start. You want me to start? And I'll set the. I'll set the tone in the agenda. Since I have you all assembled, I'd like to talk about the closing, the bankruptcy of Hooters. I have a specific angle on this, and it's this. Hooters outfits are weird and not sexy. Okay? The tight shirts. We'll give you the tight shirts. They're a mainstay throughout human history, but from the waist down, what is going on with those Hooters outfits? Those orange elastic shorts, the nude pantyhose? Here's the thing. We as a species know about sexual selection. If these things were attractive to wear, people would be wearing them in the wild. Okay, maybe not that shade of orange, but, you know, garishly covered shorts and pantyhose hosiery underneath. At any given Moment in Manhattan, 75% of the female bartenders are dressed more alluringly than a hooters waitress. And 65% of the bar patrons. I don't know why. There must be something going on. And it may be that the wings are so good, but there's something about a permission structure or people convincing themselves that this really was alluring. And I swear I'm not being the Margaret Dumont. Oh, it's so vulgar. That is not my critique. My critique is it. It's just not sexy. And people actually don't think it's sexy. It's just weird from the waist down. Hooters, we wish you luck. Every business should be able to rebound. Hope you get out of chapter 11. I don't know. I don't know if you guys agree, disagree, or just want to move on to your own. Go Grinders.

[Sarah Isger]

I've never been to a Hooters, Sarah.

[Sarada Perry]

You know, I went to one in Columbia, Missouri, during a friend's wedding. I did not. I don't think I noticed the pantyhose. I probably wasn't particularly.

[Mike Pesca]

Tell me about the kind of venues that your friends book for weddings.

[Sarada Perry]

You know, no, it wasn't the wedding itself. It was. It was. We were kind of in the middle of nowhere, and that was the only place to eat. So we went, and it was fascinating. Fascinating place. There was a great. There was a great Times opinion piece about Hooters this weekend. If you guys didn't catch it, it was beautiful. See, this is.

[Mike Pesca]

This is the best kind of discussion. Let me tell you about my experience with Hooters. It was fascinating sociologically. And there was an excellent Times piece about it.

[Sarada Perry]

Exactly.

[Mike Pesca]

Also, we were at the one. One place in the middle of Missouri for hundreds of miles that has more college graduates than not. Anyway, Sara, do you want to go next with your Go Grinder?

[Sarada Perry]

Let me think. So I hesitate to bring this up, given what you just said, but I'm just going to do it anyway. Do you know what? I really hate? What bothers me is when rest. I'm a vegetarian. And when restaurants suggest that cauliflower steak is a meal.

[Sarah Isger]

Literally last night I was at a place where that was the vegetarian option.

[Sarada Perry]

Say what now? Because. Just because I don't eat meat, you're gonna hand me an entire freaking head of cauliflower and call that a meal? Also charge me a lot of money for it. Like what if you. If you do not know how to prepare vegetarian food, which, by the way, isn't just vegetables. It also involves grains and proteins and all the nutrients that meat eaters need. If you don't know how to do that, then please don't insult me and all people with a brain by roasting a giant freaking head of cauliflower and telling me that this is a dinner that I should actually see as a delicacy. Please bite me. Please. Okay, that's it.

[Mike Pesca]

Sarah Isger, whose next cat is going to be named Cauliflower Steak? What is your go grinder?

[Sarah Isger]

You know, actually, I have some friends where they let the children each add a word to the cat's name. And so there's a Chainsaw Kevin and Fluffy, Big Truck. That family had three children.

[Mike Pesca]

So first of all, she's a very improv oriented family. A lot of yes and ing in that family.

[Sarah Isger]

Exactly, exactly.

[Mike Pesca]

No bad answers. I think when it comes to cats names, there are some bad answers.

[Sarada Perry]

Yeah, Gentle parenting. Yeah.

[Sarah Isger]

Gentle parenting would be an amazing cat name. Sarah, you live in D.C. right?

[Sarada Perry]

Yeah. Right outside. Yeah.

[Sarah Isger]

Okay. I've got the vegetarian menu for you. We'll talk after.

[Sarada Perry]

Okay.

[Sarah Isger]

Okay.

[Mike Pesca]

This is what I do. Mike Pesca is known for putting vegetarians together.

[Sarah Isger]

I'm a bachelorette vegetarian. When my husband is gone, I'm a vegetarian.

[Sarada Perry]

That's funny, because my husband is a bachelor meat eater when I'm gone.

[Sarah Isger]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. Sarada has inspired me because she has beautiful curly hair and I have curly hair. And here we are on the precipice of beautiful weather around the country. I hate spring, but I do love summer. Here's the problem. Same, same humidity. And if you have curly hair, there's just no good solution. And you're wearing your hair up all summer. And if you are a professional woman, that's not acceptable to wear your hair up. You're supposed to have it down and look nice, but then you're spending three hours trying to straighten it. You do straighten it, and then you brush by an open window or a car door, you know, has to open for you to step three feet in, and your hair is a giant Q tip once again. So I don't know. I'm just mad at God, my hair, humidity, physics, all of those things. Does that count?

[Sarada Perry]

Yes. I share this so deeply. And we can talk products after this call.

[Mike Pesca]

Vegetarianism products. All I can do is offer a Garnier fructose. I don't even know if that's a thing. I haven't had hair in a long time. I once ate a vegetable. So, you know, what I'm saying is I, I contain multitudes and so do my guests. I want to thank them. They are Sarah To Perry, former special assistant to President Obama, main speechwriter for so many DNCs, more than I could even count originally. Thank you, Sarah.

[Sarada Perry]

Thank you.

[Mike Pesca]

And Sarah Isger, who's, you know, from the Dispatch and ABC News and Advisory Opinions, which is just about my favorite podcast that she co hosts with David French. Thank you so much, Sarah.

[Sarah Isger]

Thank you, Mike.

[Mike Pesca]

We're not saying that we're right. We're not saying that you're right. Certainly not that. We are saying we're not even mad. And that's it for today's show. Cory Wara produces the gist solo. Michelle Pesca, CBSO of Peach Fish Productions. Leo Baums, the intern, Umper G. Peru. To Peru. Thanks for listening.